Thursday, June 21, 2007

Dumbest Idea of the Week

Over in the comments on Hit & Run, I came across a commenter who was proposing a constitutional amendment to ban Islam. Here is a taste:

Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

Article II

As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.

Article III

Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.

The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.

The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.

Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.

While there is no denying that a major part of the US's and the world's problems are a result of the followers of Islam, I find the idea of writing discrimination into the Constitution to be repugnant. It is in direct conflict with everything that this country was founded on and a perfect example of a "cure" being worse than the disease.

2 comments:

mikej said...

We've written discrimination into our Constitution since its inception. Apparently, you've never heard of the "Three Fifths Compromise".

In the early republic, according to my history courses, the franchise was limited to tax-paying white male property owners. If that limitation had been written into the Constitution, we wouldn't be afflicted by our present socialist government.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization to "free white persons." If that restriction had been written into the Constitition, we would have considerably less worry about Islamic terrorism in the United States today.

Why not discriminate against Muslims? They'll certainly discriminate against you given the chance. And they probably will, because the federal government uses our taxes to import more of them.

Liberty Dog said...

So because they discriminated 200 years ago, we should feel free to do so today?

While it was certainly not flawless, at its core the Constitution represents a protection of rights, not a granting of rights. People have the right to worship and associate as they see fit. Those rights do not derive from the government.

It always sounds great to use the government as a hammer so long as you are not the nail, but that does not make it right. If you are so honestly lacking in imagination that you feel you need such an amendment to protect us from Islamists, then I feel sorry for you.

Protection should be about preserving rights, not diminishing them.